[Mesorah] Davar HaAveid vs. Davar HaAvud

[Benjamin M. Kandel]

Participles can be nismach - for example, "ha-shomeir achi anochi", "oveid
ha-adamah", "shomrei ha-saf", etc.  Aveidas is indeed a participle that is
nismach, so the kameitz (depending on how you pronounce it, it may
actually also be a stative, but ein kan mekomo) changes to a chataf.

I think your transliteration scheme was clear - a regular active
participle has a cholam after the first letter of the root, and a stative
has a kameitz.

Kol tuv

Ben

> I don't understand your proof from 22:3; the chataf there, in addition to
> the s'michus, implies that aveidas is a noun.
>
> In the event that my transliteration scheme was unclear, I intended that
> Ha-Aveid have a kamatz under the aleph, so that I'm not sure if we're
> arguing between aveid/oveid.
>
> Your classification of bateil as a stative verb rather than as a passive
> participle seems to answer my latter question, though.
>
> Thanks and Ch"S,
>
> Josh
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Benjamin M. Kandel <bkandel at yu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Davar ha-aveid is correct.  Aveid is a stative verb, and the Torah
>> describes the lost object with a stative verb (although it is feminine -
>> Devarim 22:3, "le-khol aveidat ahikha").  The active participle would be
>> "oveid".
>> Stative verbs describe states, not actions.  Other common examples of
>> statives are "yashein", "ameil", "tamei", "kasher", "meit" (hollow root,
>> or ayin-vav), "eid", "geir", "hasheikh" (as in "safeik hasheikha safeik
>> aina hasheikha"), etc.  So "bateil be-shishim" means "nullified in
>> sixty",
>> even though the English equivalent does use the passive participle.
>>
>> Kol tuv and chag sameach
>>
>> Ben Kandel
>>
>> > I got into a discussion today over the proper conjugation of the
>> latter
>> > word
>> > in one of the heterei melacha of ChoH"M.  I had always heard it called
>> > Ha-Aveid, using the active participle ("an object being lost") but the
>> > other
>> > party insisted it should be Ha-Avud, using the passive participle ("a
>> lost
>> > object").
>> >
>> > Google produces sources of some authority that utilize both
>> conjugations,
>> > i.e., money that he is losing and money that he will have lost.  What
>> is
>> > the
>> > origin of this difference?
>> >
>> > (Upon further consideration of the matter - and aided by the
>> information
>> > that I picked up from Gesenius and Wikipedia in writing this post -
>> I'm
>> > not
>> > sure that I fully understand the distinction between these two parts
>> of
>> > speech.  When something is bateil b'shishim, does that mean that it is
>> > continually actively being nullified, as opposed to being batul
>> v'omeid?
>> > If
>> > so, why?)
>> >
>> > Thanks and Ch"S,
>> >
>> > Josh
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mesorah mailing list
>> > Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
>> > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mesorah mailing list
>> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
>> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>